And yet, even when the POTUS is a Dem and they hold control of the Legislature, somehow they still manage to get just enough bought-and-paid-for politicians elected to prevent those oh-so-popular policies from ever passing. Almost as if they planned it that way.

This is misremembering the obstructionism of the repubs, and devaluing the massive things that Obama, Clinton, and Biden did. Progress has been too slow, for sure, and this is a problem, also for sure, but there have been really great things as well.

It's odd, isn't it, that despite those "really great things" we are still on track to drive ourselves to extinction, and we actually sped that process up under the last Dem POTUS. None of those great things will matter when we are all dead.

Same reply about the obstructionism, etc. You have another great point, but the same misattribution. We need more progress, not less.

Yes, we do, but we will not get it under current Dem leadership. If Dems hold both houses and the WH, they will simply maintain the status quo, they won't pull us back to the left. "Nothing will substantially change" is what they run on. That, and not being Republicans.

Some, but definitely not the dems that we should be supporting. And, there are a lot! Who do you support? And who would you like to see more young people emulate? I can think of a dozen, but I'd love to know which dem politicians you like!

I'm a fan of the Dems who are not taking money from AIPAC. That's it, ATM. Being bought and paid for by a genocidal regime is a red line for me.

Hard to argue that... Likud is the maga party of israel, but even worse...

I think the time might be ripe for a break-away party similar to the one Corbyn is building in Britain. But, if a party composed of progressives who won't be bought were to appear in the US, the Dems would sue to prevent them from running, because they'd win wherever they ran.

I disagree on two main points here. One, this is an "all hands on deck" situation to fight fascism, not a time to split. Second, those in charge would sue, but would cave instantaneously. And most of them would be happy to not be beholden to their funders.

Yes, the most standout examples of the Democratic Party's failure to properly vet their candidates. They don't actually recruit candidates that are supportive of their platform. Instead, their vetting process appears to be entirely focused on maximizing fundraising potential.

I disagree. I don't think they have broken with their party on big votes, or they would be standing against this current administration's agenda (the most radical agenda in history) in the same way Manchin and Sinema prevented the Dems from passing anything truly substantive.

She wouldn't have voted for impeachment if she thought they'd convict and ACA was a Republican policy proposal and the rest of the party would not be so eager to repeal it if a black man hadn't been POTUS when it passed, so I wouldn't count that as a major departure from the party line.

Neither of those votes were some bold stance on her part. The entire nation watched the leader that kept ACA afloat.

Except. Voters don’t want expanded healthcare. They want universal healthcare. And they don’t want abortion rights. They want a Congress capable of codifying citizens rights into law so women’s health isn’t a political football for them. They want assault rifle bans not background checks.

In every situation Democrat politicians water down voter expectations and serve it cold with a shrug, ‘This is all you’re getting. Don’t complain Republicans are worse.’ So David is correct. They set the agenda and tell voters what they’re going to get.